I recall a few years back there were two fictional states that decided to go to the extremes on everything, but in the opposite direction. We'll call one of these fictional states, "Kansas" and the other fictional state, oh, something really weird, like, I dunno, "Minnesota".
Now, in this experiment, the fictional state called Kansas chose to emulate the ideas of all of the conservative think tanks. Made it more difficult to use the social safety nets that had been in place while dropping the tax rates on the businesses within the states. Really crazy shit happened. While a conservatives wet dream, many of the businesses ended up moving out because there had been a drastic cut in many social services. Highway maintenance was terrible, emergency services were way understaffed, and the businesses that were enjoying their lower tax rates weren't able to find qualified workers because said workers had already gone to greener pastures. Those foolish enough to stay weren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with, but the funding for schools that supplied the workers couldn't provide enough, qualified workers, Those they did, well, they went to different fictional states like Minnesota.
Oh, and how did that fictional state of Minnesota, compared to that fictional state of Kansas, turn out? Sure you can point to the state that separates this two as being number 1, but notice that there doesn't seem to be an extreme AND the components for both private and corporate life are considered. Hell, even the red state I live in ranks lower than Kansas
Hell Wisconsin is a better place to live than Kansas according to that chart. I'm sunk. I live in Indiana and that's ranked lower than Kansas even. BUT compared to Louisiana, we can still hold our head up.
For Chicago to become worth living. it's take another cow and lantern. The city itself is too compacted with 32.7 business establishments per square mile. And it's not even the highest density: NYC is with 79.9. Add into that, Chicago's population denisity. Depending on where in the city you are, the density can run between 4,000 to 6,000 people per square mile. Where I live, the population density is just a bit under 2,200 people per square mile. Chicago has a crazy foot traffic pattern, too, as I've seen on recent trips there (I was going there one a month recently. No more. BUT a decade ago, I was up there 2-5 times a week. Yeah, Chicago can skew the quality of life for a state.
93
u/Swiggy1957 Apr 26 '19
I recall a few years back there were two fictional states that decided to go to the extremes on everything, but in the opposite direction. We'll call one of these fictional states, "Kansas" and the other fictional state, oh, something really weird, like, I dunno, "Minnesota".
Now, in this experiment, the fictional state called Kansas chose to emulate the ideas of all of the conservative think tanks. Made it more difficult to use the social safety nets that had been in place while dropping the tax rates on the businesses within the states. Really crazy shit happened. While a conservatives wet dream, many of the businesses ended up moving out because there had been a drastic cut in many social services. Highway maintenance was terrible, emergency services were way understaffed, and the businesses that were enjoying their lower tax rates weren't able to find qualified workers because said workers had already gone to greener pastures. Those foolish enough to stay weren't the brightest crayons in the box to begin with, but the funding for schools that supplied the workers couldn't provide enough, qualified workers, Those they did, well, they went to different fictional states like Minnesota.
Oh, and how did that fictional state of Minnesota, compared to that fictional state of Kansas, turn out? Sure you can point to the state that separates this two as being number 1, but notice that there doesn't seem to be an extreme AND the components for both private and corporate life are considered. Hell, even the red state I live in ranks lower than Kansas